Alan S. Blinder. "A Monetary and Fiscal History of the United States, 1961-2021. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022. 440 pp. $24.95 (paperback), ISBN 978-0691238401. Reviewed for EH...
Please post this review every month or so, hoisting it from the archives. I felt the same way on reading this book. It will stay not on my book shelf but on my desk, until someone else can write a better one on this topic. And with Blinder's clarity of voice and prose, I doubt if that someone else will come along soon. Thanks Mr. Blinder. Thanks, Brad, for the review.
I own this book and am inspired by this review to give it another go. What I recall from first attempt is that it lacked adequate proofreading, enough so to be irritating.
But Brad's review points to a possible second flaw -- although maybe he doesn't see it as such -- which is the use of magic words like "complexity" or "structural change" as limits to analysis, when the only example given was Alan Greenspan's guess that the "A" parameter in the production function (because that's where we capture the "new technology" idea) was experiencing a repeated positive shock. That parameters are not fixed for all time may be inconvenient for macroeconomists, but it shouldn't be grounds for a profession's throwing up its hands.
I'm sure its a fascinating history, and I'm old enough to remember much of it from the newspapers, magazines and evening broadcasts. What strikes me is that even as the circumstances and terminology change, the arguments seem to be the same, and that it has been this way since at least the Middle Ages. All those debates about the nature of Christ and his worldly goods and the worldly goods of those who would model themselves after him seem to have echoes in the Federal Reserve and Congressional debates of today.
Please post this review every month or so, hoisting it from the archives. I felt the same way on reading this book. It will stay not on my book shelf but on my desk, until someone else can write a better one on this topic. And with Blinder's clarity of voice and prose, I doubt if that someone else will come along soon. Thanks Mr. Blinder. Thanks, Brad, for the review.
I own this book and am inspired by this review to give it another go. What I recall from first attempt is that it lacked adequate proofreading, enough so to be irritating.
But Brad's review points to a possible second flaw -- although maybe he doesn't see it as such -- which is the use of magic words like "complexity" or "structural change" as limits to analysis, when the only example given was Alan Greenspan's guess that the "A" parameter in the production function (because that's where we capture the "new technology" idea) was experiencing a repeated positive shock. That parameters are not fixed for all time may be inconvenient for macroeconomists, but it shouldn't be grounds for a profession's throwing up its hands.
I'm sure its a fascinating history, and I'm old enough to remember much of it from the newspapers, magazines and evening broadcasts. What strikes me is that even as the circumstances and terminology change, the arguments seem to be the same, and that it has been this way since at least the Middle Ages. All those debates about the nature of Christ and his worldly goods and the worldly goods of those who would model themselves after him seem to have echoes in the Federal Reserve and Congressional debates of today.
This review seems to imply that the FOMC should be full of lawyers, bankers, and engineers: with just a few economists to keep them honest.